The NBA only has teams play each other one game at a time, and a lot more time for travel. If teams had to go to more cities, there would be a lot more travel, the union would never allow it.

And baseball has twice as many games to work with and is far less taxing on a daily basis than basketball is. I don't think it would be that hard to schedule a few 2 game series at the expense of a few 4 game series against the Tigers/Royals/Twins/Indians that we currently have.

Awesome that we play both LA teams back to back. Perfect chance to go check out LA! I was also thinking of going down to San Diego since its not a long drive and petco looks pretty nice. Sox wont be there obviously but nats or pirates will be... not bad.

The NBA only has teams play each other one game at a time, and a lot more time for travel. If teams had to go to more cities, there would be a lot more travel, the union would never allow it.

I see no logic in this. It's not like it would add any travel. There would be exactly as many road games as there are now. It would just increase the variety in the schedule. I'm not sure how they do things in the NBA. But, in the NHL, they schedule road trips where they are playing teams all basically in the same region. For example, the Hawks would play all 3 Western Canadian teams, plus the California teams and Phoenix on the same road trip.

The same thing can apply to MLB. When the Sox are playing teams like the Angels and A's, they can have a 2-game series in SF, SD, and/or Chavez Ravine included in there. When they play the Yankees and O's, throw in a series with the Nats and Phillies in that road trip. It's not like teams are any more spread out in MLB than they are in any other league (NHL actually has the most spread out map of the 4 leagues), plus there are multiple games played in a city for each stop. It really can be done, and I'd fully support it. It DOES get super boring seeing little variety.

I see no logic in this. It's not like it would add any travel. There would be exactly as many road games as there are now. It would just increase the variety in the schedule. I'm not sure how they do things in the NBA. But, in the NHL, they schedule road trips where they are playing teams all basically in the same region. For example, the Hawks would play all 3 Western Canadian teams, plus the California teams and Phoenix on the same road trip.

The same thing can apply to MLB. When the Sox are playing teams like the Angels and A's, they can have a 2-game series in SF, SD, and/or Chavez Ravine included in there. When they play the Yankees and O's, throw in a series with the Nats and Phillies in that road trip. It's not like teams are any more spread out in MLB than they are in any other league (NHL actually has the most spread out map of the 4 leagues), plus there are multiple games played in a city for each stop. It really can be done, and I'd fully support it. It DOES get super boring seeing little variety.

More two game series means more travel, even if the number of road games is the same. Think of it this way: If you have a road trip that's two 3-game series, you're traveling three times - once from home to the first city, once from the first city to the second city, and once back home. If you have three 2-game series, it's the same number of games, but it's four times traveling. That would add up over the course of the season. As much as it might make sense to fans, I really can't see the players going for it, and I can't see MLB caring enough to fight the players to make it happen.

Some really interesting reading is the current CBA: http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf. You'll see that there are very specific rules about all sorts of things. Right off the bat, both sides have agreed to no more than 20 interleague games, so that would have to be changed.

More two game series means more travel, even if the number of road games is the same. Think of it this way: If you have a road trip that's two 3-game series, you're traveling three times - once from home to the first city, once from the first city to the second city, and once back home. If you have three 2-game series, it's the same number of games, but it's four times traveling. That would add up over the course of the season. As much as it might make sense to fans, I really can't see the players going for it, and I can't see MLB caring enough to fight the players to make it happen.

Some really interesting reading is the current CBA: http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf. You'll see that there are very specific rules about all sorts of things. Right off the bat, both sides have agreed to no more than 20 interleague games, so that would have to be changed.

Big deal! The Sox had 26 road series this season. That's about how many road series teams in MLB have. That is almost 63% of the traveling that NHL and NBA teams do. It's not uncommon for NHL teams to have a 7- or 8-game road trip in a 2-week span, and all are in different cities, spread out around a significantly larger map. You will often see the Blackhawks playing 3 games in 4 nights in 3 different cities. So, even if you do add more road series, MLB would STILL have less travel than the NHL or NBA, even though the later 2 leagues' players play a sport that's actually taxing on the body.

Big deal! The Sox had 26 road series this season. That's about how many road series teams in MLB have. That is almost 63% of the traveling that NHL and NBA teams do. It's not uncommon for NHL teams to have a 7- or 8-game road trip in a 2-week span, and all are in different cities, spread out around a significantly larger map. You will often see the Blackhawks playing 3 games in 4 nights in 3 different cities. So, even if you do add more road series, MLB would STILL have less travel than the NHL or NBA, even though the later 2 leagues' players play a sport that's actually taxing on the body.

Oh god, first... Significantly larger map? What is the furthest point the Hawks would have to travel to the Cubs or Sox wouldn't? Edmonton? That's a 3 1/2 hour direct flight from Chicago. Seattle is 4 hours direct from Chicago. Let's not pretend like the Hawks are playing in Europe regularly.

Second, obviously, baseball is not hockey or basketball. I could easily be as condescending and point out that hockey players rarely see more than 20 minutes of actual play in a given game and that even my out of shape fatass is capable of 20 minutes of extraneous physical activity for 15-20 minutes per night, so how hard can hockey really be???, but I won't be and will just note that what makes certain sports difficult does not translate to others. Is baseball as physically difficult as football, basketball, or hockey? On an in-game basis, of course not, but over the course of a grueling, season in which you squeeze 162 games into roughly 190 days, yes it is very, very taxing on the body and mind. The NHL and NBA play about half as many games in the same amount of time on the calendar, so yes, obviously those teams are capable of extra travel. How often do the Hawks or Bulls play 6 games in 7 days? The Sox do that EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. It is not uncommon to see them play 10, 15, sometimes even 20 days in a row without an off day. What is a long run of consecutive games for the Hawks? 3 days in a row? 4 days? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Weren't people and players bitching about the "condensed" hockey schedule this season due to the lockout? They played 48 games in 3 1/2 months (roughly 110-115 days). Paul Konerko eats a schedule like that for breakfast every day.

A quick glance of the Blackhawks schedule this year, it looks like they play 3 road games in 3 different cities in 4 days on just three separate occasions this season. Three times. And each time they do, they follow it up with at least a 2-3 day break immediately afterward. WHAT WARRIORS THESE ICE MEN ARE.

The baseball schedule has been set this way for over 100 years, do you actually think that was by accident? And that you're the first person whose stumbled on this amazing secret that we could just add more travel and the quality of the product wouldn't suffer?

Big deal! The Sox had 26 road series this season. That's about how many road series teams in MLB have. That is almost 63% of the traveling that NHL and NBA teams do. It's not uncommon for NHL teams to have a 7- or 8-game road trip in a 2-week span, and all are in different cities, spread out around a significantly larger map. You will often see the Blackhawks playing 3 games in 4 nights in 3 different cities. So, even if you do add more road series, MLB would STILL have less travel than the NHL or NBA, even though the later 2 leagues' players play a sport that's actually taxing on the body.

Let's put it this way: I don't really have an opinion either way if it would be technically possible, I just think that it's a pointless discussion because it would need player approval, and the players would never approve it. That's assuming that MLB even wants it, and part of me suspects they wouldn't, because if you play every team every year, it makes it harder to ever market some interleague series as a rare special event.

Oh god, first... Significantly larger map? What is the furthest point the Hawks would have to travel to the Cubs or Sox wouldn't? Edmonton? That's a 3 1/2 hour direct flight from Chicago. Seattle is 4 hours direct from Chicago. Let's not pretend like the Hawks are playing in Europe regularly.

Second, obviously, baseball is not hockey or basketball. I could easily be as condescending and point out that hockey players rarely see more than 20 minutes of actual play in a given game and that even my out of shape fatass is capable of 20 minutes of extraneous physical activity for 15-20 minutes per night, so how hard can hockey really be???, but I won't be and will just note that what makes certain sports difficult does not translate to others. Is baseball as physically difficult as football, basketball, or hockey? On an in-game basis, of course not, but over the course of a grueling, season in which you squeeze 162 games into roughly 190 days, yes it is very, very taxing on the body and mind. The NHL and NBA play about half as many games in the same amount of time on the calendar, so yes, obviously those teams are capable of extra travel. How often do the Hawks or Bulls play 6 games in 7 days? The Sox do that EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. It is not uncommon to see them play 10, 15, sometimes even 20 days in a row without an off day. What is a long run of consecutive games for the Hawks? 3 days in a row? 4 days? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Weren't people and players bitching about the "condensed" hockey schedule this season due to the lockout? They played 48 games in 3 1/2 months (roughly 110-115 days). Paul Konerko eats a schedule like that for breakfast every day.

A quick glance of the Blackhawks schedule this year, it looks like they play 3 road games in 3 different cities in 4 days on just three separate occasions this season. Three times. And each time they do, they follow it up with at least a 2-3 day break immediately afterward. WHAT WARRIORS THESE ICE MEN ARE.

The baseball schedule has been set this way for over 100 years, do you actually think that was by accident? And that you're the first person whose stumbled on this amazing secret that we could just add more travel and the quality of the product wouldn't suffer?

There is under 10 minutes of TOTAL action in a baseball game (sitting in the dugout for half the game and standing doing nothing for a large part of the other half isn't action). NHL and NBA both see constant action for their games. MLB players should be able to play that many games. It's ludicrous to think adding one more opponent in a road trip would be such a big deal.

Let's put it this way: I don't really have an opinion either way if it would be technically possible, I just think that it's a pointless discussion because it would need player approval, and the players would never approve it. That's assuming that MLB even wants it, and part of me suspects they wouldn't, because if you play every team every year, it makes it harder to ever market some interleague series as a rare special event.

Oh god, first... Significantly larger map? What is the furthest point the Hawks would have to travel to the Cubs or Sox wouldn't? Edmonton? That's a 3 1/2 hour direct flight from Chicago. Seattle is 4 hours direct from Chicago. Let's not pretend like the Hawks are playing in Europe regularly.

Second, obviously, baseball is not hockey or basketball. I could easily be as condescending and point out that hockey players rarely see more than 20 minutes of actual play in a given game and that even my out of shape fatass is capable of 20 minutes of extraneous physical activity for 15-20 minutes per night, so how hard can hockey really be???, but I won't be and will just note that what makes certain sports difficult does not translate to others. Is baseball as physically difficult as football, basketball, or hockey? On an in-game basis, of course not, but over the course of a grueling, season in which you squeeze 162 games into roughly 190 days, yes it is very, very taxing on the body and mind. The NHL and NBA play about half as many games in the same amount of time on the calendar, so yes, obviously those teams are capable of extra travel. How often do the Hawks or Bulls play 6 games in 7 days? The Sox do that EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. It is not uncommon to see them play 10, 15, sometimes even 20 days in a row without an off day. What is a long run of consecutive games for the Hawks? 3 days in a row? 4 days? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Weren't people and players bitching about the "condensed" hockey schedule this season due to the lockout? They played 48 games in 3 1/2 months (roughly 110-115 days). Paul Konerko eats a schedule like that for breakfast every day.

A quick glance of the Blackhawks schedule this year, it looks like they play 3 road games in 3 different cities in 4 days on just three separate occasions this season. Three times. And each time they do, they follow it up with at least a 2-3 day break immediately afterward. WHAT WARRIORS THESE ICE MEN ARE.
The baseball schedule has been set this way for over 100 years, do you actually think that was by accident? And that you're the first person whose stumbled on this amazing secret that we could just add more travel and the quality of the product wouldn't suffer?

I may not agree with everything else on the post but you make a good point. I take exception with the last point though. Simply using the "that's the way it always has been" is a pretty weak argument. Travel, equipment, nutrition, training, and the quality of the fields are so much better than they were 100, 50, even 20 years ago. Very little in the world is the same today as it was 100 years ago.

Let's put it this way: I don't really have an opinion either way if it would be technically possible, I just think that it's a pointless discussion because it would need player approval, and the players would never approve it. That's assuming that MLB even wants it, and part of me suspects they wouldn't, because if you play every team every year, it makes it harder to ever market some interleague series as a rare special event.

I'm old fashioned in this sense. Interleague should be abolished. Half the teams the Sox play I don't care to see or they other teams that come in are a zero draw. Does anyone really really care that the Sox and Cubs play every year? The last 2 or 3 years it's been kinda dull.

I'm old fashioned in this sense. Interleague should be abolished. Half the teams the Sox play I don't care to see or they other teams that come in are a zero draw. Does anyone really really care that the Sox and Cubs play every year? The last 2 or 3 years it's been kinda dull.

I dont' care that the Sox play the Cubs every year, but I enjoy seeing them play other NL teams and players I wouldn't often see otherwise.

I dont' care that the Sox play the Cubs every year, but I enjoy seeing them play other NL teams and players I wouldn't often see otherwise.

I agree, although I actually still don't mind the Cubs/Sox games, either. Yeah, they suck now but that's because the teams suck. Unless you don't think either will ever get good again, I think the games will eventually be worth watching again.